NAFTA & The Clintons: Lies and Deception

[Ichingcarpenter]

Run time: 04:39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YlTSYVZxuY   Posted on YouTube: April 12, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 12, 2008 By DU Member: Ichingcarpenter Views on DU: 956

 
Now here is what has happened to Pennsylvania because
of the Clintons' Nafta........

[mac2]

1. Obama may say he's anti-trade but he supported it in the past.

He and his wife are members of the Trilateral Commission. He is a globalist (church and state combined...Fascist). They are mostly all Neo Cons in DC today.

[Publius2008]

2. That's not what he is said

His position in the debates is that he supports free trade, but he is against NAFTA-style agreements that have weak environmental and labor standards. This is similar to the position that Gephardt took four years ago when he ran for President.

[bulloney]

3. That's the frustrating part of engaging in debate on trade agreements like NAFTA.

When you voice opposition to NAFTA, right away, its supporters label you as anti-trade and anti-capitalist and a bunch of other names.

I'm not against the CONCEPT of a NAFTA or the other agreements. But, as the saying goes, the devil's in the details.

I've read much of the NAFTA proposal. (The entire text is a series of books that is impossible for anyone to read). NAFTA is not a trade agreement as much as it is a corporate investment protection agreement.

By listening to the pro-NAFTA gang, you would have thought that there had been no trading taking place between the U.S. and Mexico until NAFTA came along. NAFTA speeded up much of the bad things that had been taking place in U.S.-Mexican trade.

At the time NAFTA was approved in Congress, about half of the goods that moved from the U.S. to Mexico was INTRA-FIRM. In other words, it was companies like GM moving parts from a GM plant in the U.S to another GM plant in Mexico. That's not trade. That's moving inventory.

NAFTA has a provision that protects companies moving operations to Mexico from being taken over by the Mexican government. During NAFTA's ratification during the Salinas administration, nationalism would likely not happen. But you can't predict what will happen in the future. This provision gave U.S. corporations the assurances that if they moved operations to Mexico and if the Mexican government would take over the operation, that company would be compensated in full with G-7 currency.

NAFTA supporters glowingly point out to how fast the Mexican economy is growing. The peso had taken two major devaluations just before NAFTA. It threw Mexicans' buying power back to the stone age. Any improvement since then is relative to when the peso's devaluations took place.

The Mexican economy is so skewed. At the time of NAFTA'passage something like 36 families controlled more than half of its economy. And we know how well trickle-down works in a skewed economy, right Reagan supporters?

This same mindset that "trade creates jobs" and opposing any trade agreement makes you backwards is ridiculous. Some of us actually take the time to study what these proposal are and how they work. I have yet to find a supporter of NAFTA or any other agreement who has read the agreements and who did not base their opinion on some junket that some corporation sent them on.

[mac2]

5. You can't argue the same against the same.

Free trade is NAFTA. He approves of globalism or he would not be supported by the Chicago Tribune or the media. He would not support Faith Based cronyims for votes. He an empty suit who gives a good speech.

[mac2]

6. And now you know why Gephardt lost his run for President?

Just enviornmental and labor standards won't cure our problems regarding those unconstitutional trade agreements. The President and his diplomats, etc. aren't allowed to do trade agreements since it gives them too much power...especially in secret without our knowledge or input. Congress and the people determine trade in the open.

We can't enforce them in other countries which don't even have those laws. Under the WTO we lost every complaint against others. We are paying huge fines. The WTO is in Europe and it is out to destroy us.

Those "free trade" agreements even dismiss our laws (Constitutional rights) and borders. Did he say he was against those? Nope. He favors the open borders, amnesty, and the Americas. Is that in our best interest? Hasn't been good for us so far.

[Publius2008]

7. This is a bunch of nonsense

Of course you can have trade agreements with environmental and labor standards. Look at the European Union. Member countries have free trade amongst themselves, but all members have committed to meeting certain standards.

And I don't understand your point about "unconstitutional trade agreements." The President signed NAFTA and the Senate ratified it. That is the process set forth in the Constitution for entering into treaties. It may have been a misguided treaty, but it was constitutional.

[nachoproblem]

8. You can't reason with it.

It's not only a bunch nonsense, it's a bunch of Libertarian conspiracy scripture. Government doing things = unconstitutional. He who questions or disagrees is unclean.

[TheFarseer]

4. (The tax rate) increased to 16.1% for earners in the middle 20%

doesn't this just mean their incomes went up? or am I missing something?

[FOS]

9. I LOVE This Video. I'm Sharing It With Others

Thank you for telling and showing us the TRUTH with FACTS.



:yourock: :patriot: